Over the past week or so I've had conversations with several Anglican bishops and I was really encouraged by a comment one of them made just before we parted. He expressed his enthusiasm for the demise of Christendom.
Well, not quite - but in one sense.
His view was actually one that I've held for some time which is that the church in the West needs to embrace the reality of post-Christendom if it's ever going to get really sharp with its local mission. This is because while there's something useful about holding a pseudo-establishment position - the voice you may have in politics, the prominent place in public life, the tax breaks, etc - the cost is you can slide into being a middle-class, diplomatic, backward-looking institution. Some people would describe parts of the Anglican Church this way.
Alternatively, a church that doesn't see much favour from the state may well act more like a lively, grass-roots movement - working on personal conversion, standing up for big principles and igniting local passions. This is exciting and it's what the bishop was keen to see more of in the West. He also felt this would be more reflective of the church in the New Testament.
I realise that this is a contentious argument. After all, Christians believe that God's ways are actually good for all people and so even if the Christianity of the population of a 'Christian state' tends to be more watery, the social good is still seen to be very significant. On an historical note, I find it very interesting that although the English reformers were trying to recapture aspects of the New Testament church, Cranmer actually thought that the early church was in a compromise position because it didn't exist under a temporal Christian king.
But the point I'm considering here isn't whether Christians should continue striving to see Christian values adopted by the state, but just that when it's clear that the state is no longer particularly Christian, the church may well do far better to accept that reality and re-understand itself and its mission in the context of being a minority group.
Thoughts on Theology-in-Practice for Anglicans and Episcopalians - plus some other stuff.
Unless God intervenes in some drastic way, Fast forward 50 years and this is exactly where we will be wont we? We will be living in a world where the only thing most people know about christianity is what they have learnt from watching television sitcoms? (It doesn't take a braniac to work out what picture TV sitcoms paint of Christianity)
ReplyDeleteI suspect there are lots who hanker for the demise of Christendom and a glad to see its occurrence. I for one am keen to embrace it without fear, rather than try to reinstate it. Tim Chester (I'm on a bit of a bender) points to the opportunities of post-Christendom: "This is a moment of opportunity to rediscover authentic apostolic Christianity shaped by the cross. The glory, power and wisdom of Christ (cf 1 Cor 1) are seen in the shame, weakness and foolishness of the cross... We make God known to a post-Christian world by revealing him in cross-centered discipleship." (from A Meal with Jesus). Indeed. A question for Anglicanism, which was of course born and 'institutionalised' within Christendom, is how (and whether) this should reshape church structures and authorities, and public voice.
ReplyDeleteThere's part of me that wonders to what extent Christendom existed in the first place but nonetheless I think there are a couple of questions which come to mind following your blog - If Christendom is in demise and, as you suggest, an Acts inspired local church is indeed the way to proceed then what does this mean for the Anglican church as it is currently structured. Is the current structure of the church a reflection of a tight linkage between Church and State and if so is this biblical or outdated?
ReplyDeleteI note that the Baptists and even the Presbyterian's to some extent have a more devolved model of leadership and engagement with the community than what the Anglican, or even Catholic Church have modelled.
I also wonder about the Catholic and Anglican model in that it can (though I recognise not in all) diminish the personal salvation and relationship a believer has with God and instead place great emphasis on the established priests or bishops. That said if that's a misunderstanding I'm happy to be educated :)
@Anonymous - these are good questions. Is Anglican governance biblical and is it effective in the post-Christendom West?
ReplyDeleteOn the first one, my assessment is that the Bible doesn't really give strict models for the details of large church or denominational governance. Obviously, there are structures for local leadership and examples of broader oversight, but it's not clear that the NT is seeking to be exhaustive on all the acceptable possibilities for every situation that the church finds itself in.
On the second, I actually think that the Anglican system isn't too bad, if it's breadth is well used. So, at the local church level, we have teaching elders and set-aside servants in the form of 'priests' and 'deacons' (though I don't know of many Anglican Churches in Melbourne that have deliberately structured themselves with ordained distinctive deacons). Alongside them we have other elders in the form of lay vestry members / parish counsellors (although I'm not sure that there are always good selection processes in place for these roles). Then, at the broader level we have bishops who oversee the appointment of the elders and think about broader mission strategies.
Don't get me wrong though - just because I think the structure can be well utilised, doesn't mean that it always is. And when we start getting into more complicated situations - clustered parishes, multi-site, multi-congregation or multi-staff churches, there often isn't the fresh thinking needed to ensure that there's real leadership at every level of the fellowship.